The
refugee hearing began in
November, 1989 and lasted
with various adjournments
for a number of months.
The full story of the other
aliases Ryszard Paszkowski
had assumed, depending on
the circumstances in his
life became apparent. In
June 1982, when he escaped
from Poland with a friend,
he used a passport in the
name of Henryk Peca. During
his short stint with the
Foreign Legion, he was Adam
Piotrowski, although this
detail was not discussed
at his hearing. In 1984,
he came to Canada as Robert
Fisher, an identity given
to him by the RCMP in Italy.
In August 1986, while on
assignment for CSIS in Canada,
he assumed the name of Edward
Busch. On October 4, 1989,
he returned to Canada with
Ela with a German passport
in the name of Krystjan
Nieradzi.

The
Refugee Board heard Paszkowski's
testimony as to his involvement
with CSIS from December
1984 to August 1986. It
differed significantly from
that of the CSIS intelligence
officer, Nick Maduck, who
identified himself as the
"source handler" for Fisher.
Maduck swore that the claimant
approached CSIS unannounced
in Canada on July 2, 1985,
saying he wished to discuss
a security-related matter.
CSIS claimed this was the
first contact they had with
the claimant. Maduck stated
that for the next ten months,
which was the extent of
the relationship CSIS had
with him, CSIS was involved
in a covert operation intended
to corroborate information
provided by the claimant.
Maduck admitted that there
were two occasions when
Paszkowski was asked to
travel to Ottawa to visit
the Polish Embassy. These
occurred in September 1985
and April 1986. CSIS, he
concluded, developed a cover
story on these occasions
in order to give Paszkowski
credibility with the Polish
Embassy. Fisher was to be
an impoverished Polish immigrant
who wanted to work for the
Polish intelligence service
in return for money. For
travel purposes only, he
was asked to assume the
name of Edward Busch.

Most
significantly, Maduck did
admit that the possibility
existed that Fisher may
have been asked to travel
to Europe on behalf of CSIS
if the agency was able to
confirm the information
Fisher was providing. It
was for this reason that
Maduck had assisted the
claimant in completing his
travel document application.
However, in the spring of
1986, according to Maduck,
CSIS came to the conclusion
that Paszkowski was untruthful
and unreliable and made
the decision to sever the
relationship. When Paszkowski
returned to Edmonton from
Ottawa in April, he was
paid an honorarium and expenses
for the Ottawa trip and
told his services were no
longer required. Maduck
also swore that on April
29, 1986, in a telephone
conversation he told Paszkowski
not to contact him again.
He was never requested by
CSIS, Maduck went on, to
go anywhere on their behalf
outside the country or to
do any further work for
CSIS.

Maduck
claimed too that on July
30, 1986, Paszkowski telephoned
him to say he was going
to Italy to work for the
Polish intelligence service.
Their last contact was on
August 11th when Paszkowski
phoned Maduck's superiors
to say he would be leaving
for Italy on August 15 or
16. Maduck added that only
in June of that year did
CSIS receive a photograph
and the fingerprints of
Ryszard Paszkowski from
the West German authorities.
Only on July 29, 1986, could
CSIS confirm that Paszkowski
and Fisher were one and
the same person. Questions
that remain unanswered are:
Why did CSIS assist Paszkowski
with getting a Canadian
travel document so that
he could leave Canada and
why didn't CSIS inform Immigration
and the RCMP about his double
identity and have him arrested
as obviously was the case
three years later?

Maduck
and Antonio Iachetta, another
CSIS intelligence officer,
both invited the Refugee
Board to believe that based
on their investigations
and information obtained
from a source classified
as a "reliable defector
source" CSIS was satisfied
that Paszkowski at no time
and in no capacity worked
for the Polish intelligence
service. Iachetta testified
that in late 1985 or early
1986 Paszkowski had delivered
a letter to the Polish Embassy
in Ottawa offering to sell
information regarding CSIS.
This information, Iachetta
said, was also obtained
through the "reliable defector
source," a senior officer
with twenty years of service
to the Polish intelligence
service, who, according
to both Maduck and Iachetta,
would have known of any
involvement of the claimant
as an agent for the Polish
SB. Maduck had told the
Board that in mid-April,
1986, Paszkowski approached
the Israelis, the CIA, and
the Italian authorities
to sell his services. These
intelligence services and
CSIS held discussions regarding
the claimant at the headquarters
level. Both CSIS employees
swore that as of the fall
of 1989 CSIS was of the
opinion that Paszkowski's
motives in dealing with
them were purely for financial
gain and that he was not
a disinformation agent for
the Polish intelligence
service.

By
its order dated June 6,
1990, the Immigration and
Refugee Board denied Paszkowski's
claim for convention refugee
status and issued its reasons
for decision.

A
response to an information
request on the treatment
of members of the Polish
Intelligence submitted by
Paszkowski's then lawyer
Tita DeRousseau had already
been prepared by the Immigration
and Refugee Board Documentation
Centre in Ottawa. The document,
dated October 24, 1989 said:
"According to an expert
on military intelligence
at the U.S. Naval Academy
in Annapolis, it is very
common that ex-members of
the Polish Intelligence
Service are harassed and
even threatened with death
after they defect. This
source adds, however, that
in the case of Poland, this
type of action has become
less frequent. Operations
of this nature are much
more common in West Germany
than in Canada due to geographic
proximity."

The
document also outlined help
given to Soviet and Polish
defectors in the U.S., including
new identities and annual
payments, and added that
all communist countries
except Romania and Cuba
"try to refrain from assassinating
emigrés and defectors in
the U.S. Nevertheless, defectors
are monitored by various
intelligence agencies. Monitoring
is thought to be more active
in West Germany and could
involve more direct harassment,
beating, or possibly assassination.
According to the Jamestown
Foundation (a private U.S.
organization lobbying for
better aid to defectors),
a defector whose case has
been made public would be
much more at risk than one
who is immediately put under
official protection."

Why
the two members of the Refugee
Board did not include this
opinion, prepared by their
own Documentation Centre,
in their consideration of
Paszkowski's case, remains
a mystery. It certainly
undermines the force of
their decision.

A
month later, the Federal
Court of Appeal without
giving any reasons rejected
the applicant's request
for leave to appeal the
decision of the Refugee
Board. Officials at the
headquarters of Immigration
Canada in Ottawa later conducted
a review of the case, which
was supposed to take into
account his personal circumstances
as they related to current
conditions in Poland and
West Germany. They decided
that he would not face any
unduly harsh or inhumane
treatment if he were returned
to Poland or Germany.

Hallam
Johnston, Director General
of Case Management in Ottawa,
concurred with the recommendation
of the Post-Claim Review
Committee on the Paszkowski
case: "Mr. Paszkowski's
story is unique and complex.
However, even if one acknowledges
that some semblance of reality
may lie beneath the murky
fog of anecdote and allegation,
the CRDD [Convention Refugee
Detention Division] Panel
has concluded that it does
not warrant his being afforded
Canada's protection under
the Convention. I concur
with the conclusion of the
Review Committee to the
effect that it is also insufficient
to warrant a positive decision
under the provisions of
the Post-Claim Review procedure."

At
about that time, Paszkowski
sent a submission to the
Immigration department in
Edmonton outlining why he
felt exceptional measures
should be taken in his case
and requesting that he be
allowed to remain in Canada
on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds: "I did not ask
for anything from this country
- only the right to stay
here with my family and
the right to a peaceful
life. Please take into consideration
the fact that my family
and I have no other possibility
of settling in any other
democratic country. We have
nowhere to go."

A
few weeks later, Randy Gurlock,
a senior Immigration officer
with the Edmonton office,
decided after reviewing
Paszkowski's file and submission
that no compelling grounds
existed to warrant letting
him stay. He accepted that
Paszkowski's wife and child
might face difficulties
if left alone in Canada,
but added in his written
review that Ela had two
options: she could return
with Paszkowski to Europe
or she could remain in Canada
and be landed as a convention
refugee. If she was landed
as a refugee, she would
be eligible for the full
range of adjustment assistance,
he wrote, and this would
give her the same opportunity
to settle as any other new
immigrant.

Gurlock
based his decision mostly
on focusing on Paszkowski's
danger to Canadian society.
"In my opinion, Mr. Paszkowski
poses a potential threat
to the safety and good order
of Canadian society. He
is potentially dangerous
and he would stop at nothing
to gain his own ends. He
is a convicted airline hijacker
and prison escapee. He admits
to assuming an entirely
false identity to immigrate
to Canada. This history,
combined with all of the
circumstances of his case
paints a picture of an individual
whose personality is one
of total manipulation."
The official concluded that
humanitarian and compassionate
factors in the case were
outweighed by the potential
threat the subject poses
to Canada. "His humanitarian
and compassionate submission
should be rejected and his
deportation order be effected."
Paszkowski was informed
that his grounds to warrant
special consideration had
been found to be insufficient.
He learned that arrangements
for his removal from Canada
were being made.

*
* * * *

In
the spring of 1991, Paszkowski
sent a complaint to the
Edmonton Chief of Police,
which read:

"I
have been receiving
threatening telephone
calls since 9:20 pm
on March 13, shortly
after David Kilgour's
speech about my situation
in the House of Commons.
In unaccented English
the caller told me to
leave Canada immediately
and to take my family
with me. He said that
if I did not leave,
I could have an unfortunate
accident - and the same
thing could happen to
my family. He said that
`they' know everything
about me. `They' know
where I am working....

"The
next call was at 9:35
pm on March 18. The
same person called and
said that I was not
taking `them' seriously
enough. He said that
I should understand
that `they' meant what
`they' said and I should
leave Canada immediately
and take my family with
me. If I did not take
this warning seriously,
I would be a dead man.

"When
I returned to Canada
in October, 1989, I
was immediately arrested
and held at the Edmonton
Remand Centre while
my case was being dealt
with. I stayed at the
remand centre for three
months and four days.
During this time, my
fiancee lived with friends
of mine in Edmonton.
She started receiving
telephone calls then,
but the caller did not
speak. There was one
telephone call towards
the end of 1989 where
the caller spoke in
broken Polish and told
her to tell me to drop
my immigration case.
He told her that we
should leave Canada
immediately or `they'
would fix me. Since
then, the silent caller
has continued telephoning
but never speaking.
We still get those telephone
calls even now.

"I
went to talk to Mr.
Kilgour today about
this problem. He then
consulted with your
office and was advised
that I should submit
an official complaint
about the threatening
telephone calls and
that I should see Sargeant
[sic] Van Camp about
getting a firearm permit
for self-protection.
Mr. Kilgour spoke with
Sargeant [sic] Van Camp
who also suggested that
I apply for a firearm
permit. I plan to listen
to this advice and apply
for such a permit very
soon because I take
the threats against
myself and my family
extremely seriously
and because my being
in Canada is inconvenient
and embarrassing for
CSIS. Also, it must
be taken into account
that I am considered
a deserter by the Polish
Intelligence Service.

"I
look forward to quick
action in this matter
since the safety of
my family and myself
is at stake."

He
received a response several
months later which said
that before considering
his written request for
a firearm permit the police
would require a letter from
Germany as his last country
of residence stating he
was never convicted of a
crime, even though they
knew of his hijacking conviction.
This, however, didn't stop
the Edmonton police from
issuing an annual security
clearance Paszkowski needs
for his job. Paszkowski
applied formally some time
later for a Firearms Acquisition
Certificate. He never received
a reply.
In the fall of 1990, I started
receiving threatening telephone
calls. Unfortunately, my
name and number were listed
in the city telephone book.
The caller would tell me
graphically what would become
of me and my family if I
didn't leave Canada. Most
of the time, I was so annoyed
that I would tell the caller
what I thought of him and
hang up. The calls continued,
so I contacted the Edmonton
City Police and they installed
a tracking device so they
would be able to tell what
number the calls were made
from. During the next several
months the phone calls continued,
but the police were unable
to determine where the calls
were coming from. It seemed
strange to me, but what
could I do? I changed my
phone number to an unlisted
one. Before I changed the
number, I received one very
weird call from a young
man. In a scared voice he
introduced himself, said
he was calling from a correction
house and that he had read
about me in the press and
would like to help me as
a Canadian. The last thing
I needed at this point was
the help of a juvenile delinquent.
I didn't treat him seriously,
and hung up. I didn't think
too much about this call
until later when I realized
what was behind it.

One
evening, the telephone in
Paszkowski's apartment rang
again. The RCMP officer
on the other end of the
phone line wanted to know
if Paszkowski knew someone
by the name of [a minor].
"There was someone by that
name who called me some
time ago," Paszkowski answered,
remembering the strange
call he had received a few
weeks previous. "He was
interested in my case and
wanted to help me," he added.

"We
took your phone number from
the long distance bill at
the corrections house for
young offenders. [The minor]
escaped from the corrections
house a few days ago. Do
you know where he is, Mr.
Paszkowski?"

"How
the hell should I know?"
an irate Paszkowski replied.
"I don't even know the guy.
I've never seen him in my
life and it's not my job
to help you search for young
offenders!" He slammed down
the receiver.

A
couple of weeks later, another
telephone call came. Again,
it was the RCMP asking about
the youth, wanting to know
where he was. This time
Paszkowski was really angry,
sensing some kind of set-up.
He told the caller to buzz-off
and hung up. He thought
that would settle the matter
for good.

During this period, I was
involved in a legal battle
with the superintendent
of the building where we
rented our apartment. We
were flooded three times;
there was water up to our
knees; things were always
breaking down; and we were
fighting a losing battle
with mice. The management
of the house did nothing
to help and on the few occasions
something was done, it was
slow in coming. I would
argue often with the superintendent
who, quickly becoming fed
up with my complaints, tried
to get rid of us by harassing
my shy wife. I would often
find Ela crying upon my
return home because of that
woman. The other tenants
also had large bones to
pick with her, so I wrote
a petition to the management
of the building asking them
to have her replaced. Twenty-five
persons signed the petition.
When the superintendent
learned that I was collecting
signatures against her,
she telephoned me to tell
me to stop doing it. "It's
illegal," she said and,
"If you continue, I will
call the police. You can't
do it." I laughed and said
she could even call the
prime minister himself if
she wished. I was going
to continue with my petition.
She shouted something in
response, but I had hung
up.

A
few weeks later, I was playing
with my son on the sofa
when somebody knocked on
the door. It was the police.
When I opened the door,
five or six officers ran
into the room and one of
them declared I was under
arrest. When I asked him
what I was under arrest
for, he responded, "Uttering
death threats against the
superintendent of this building."

They
escorted me out of my apartment
and into the street. There
were policemen everywhere
with their guns pulled and
a lot of police cars. It
was a large-scale operation
as if they were arresting
an armed gangster or something.

In
the police car, one of the
officers told me I would
be released soon on bail.
I could only wonder what
this circus was all about.
Once at the remand centre,
they took my photo and fingerprints.
The next day, my lawyer,
Brian Beresh, arranged for
my release on $1000 bail.
I was to appear in court
at a later date on the charge.

The
city police came to my home
again one evening a short
time later. I wasn't there
and Ela was alone. They
wouldn't tell her what I
was wanted for. Detective
Barros and another officer
got into the apartment and
searched the rooms without
a warrant. Before leaving,
Barros left his phone number
and told my wife that I
should call him as soon
as I returned. When I got
the message from Ela, I
called him immediately.

"What
is it this time, Mr. Barros?
What have I done now?" I
was a bit worried that Immigration
had found a country that
would take me and were ready
to deport me, but they wouldn't
send the city police would
they? They would send the
RCMP to arrest me.

"You
are wanted on charges of
having anal intercourse
with a minor."

What
the hell is that? I thought.
My English wasn't good enough
to understand the charge.
I sensed it was something
vulgar, but I wasn't sure.

My
entire body went numb with
fear and then anger. I realized
my opponents were willing
to use any means to get
rid of me, but going this
low was really beyond my
comprehension. This was
the third charge against
me. They were trying to
discourage me by throwing
these ridiculous charges
at me, hoping I would give
up and leave.

The
next day, after talking
with my lawyer, I reported
to the police station where
I was arrested by Barros.
Before doing that, I called
the press telling them about
the charges. By the time
I arrived, Barros had already
received some phone calls
asking about the case and
was upset that I had informed
the media. I guess they
thought I would be too embarrassed
to tell anyone and would
keep quiet this time. It
was only when I was arrested
that I learned who the boy
was, the mysterious young
voice who had called me
from the corrections house
for young offenders. The
same one the RCMP had been
searching for. I was charged
with having intercourse
with someone I'd never met
in my life.

I
spent the weekend at the
remand centre and was released
on $500 bail. Immigration
headquarters in Ottawa soon
escalated it's efforts to
deport me. With the two
charges against me, I was
a danger to the public peace
and order in Canada.

The
Edmonton Immigration office
is notified by Edmonton
Police Services that Ryszard
Paszkowski was arrested
on June 7, 1991 and charged
under Section 264.1 of the
Criminal Code for uttering
death threats and subsequently
released on bail. Paszkowski
was arrested again by the
police on July 6, 1991 for
uttering threats against
his landlady. The following
day he was released from
custody to appear in court
on July 9th. The preliminary
hearing for the previous
charges was set for September,
1991.

In
mid-July 1991, Ryszard Paszkowski
was also charged with sexually
assaulting a fifteen-year-old
boy. He was arrested on
July 15 and charged on one
count of anal intercourse.
He reserved his plea in
court and was released on
$500 cash bail. His next
court date was set for July
22, 1991. A note with two
scenarios of the possible
developments of the sexual
assault charge against Paszkowski
was drafted by someone at
the Edmonton Immigration
office. "Scenario #1: Monday,
July 22, 1991. The charge
of sexually assaulting a
15-year-old boy against
Paszkowski is dropped and
the perception that CSIS
was involved in a set-up
increases dramatically.
Scenario #2: Monday, July
22, 1991. The charge of
sexually assaulting a 15-year-old
boy against Paszkowski goes
to trial and the credibility
of the charge increases."

It was during the preliminary
hearing at Edmonton Provincial
Court that I saw the youth
for the first time. He avoided
eye contact with me and
appeared nervous. The prosecutor
proceeded with questioning
him about the alleged incident,
which according to him took
place at a motel outside
of Edmonton. The questions
were precise and so were
the young man's replies.
Too precise and pat for
a juvenile delinquent wasting
his youth at a group home.

The
whole circus was well orchestrated.
There I sat listening to
all those outright perversions
of the truth spilling from
the mouth of an obviously
troubled adolescent. When
the prosecutor finished,
it was time for my lawyer,
Brian Beresh, to take his
turn questioning the youth,
but the judge decided there
was no time left in the
day and adjourned the court
for several months.

When
I again reported to court
to resume the case, it turned
out the hearing couldn't
proceed because the youth
had disappeared and couldn't
therefore continue his accusations.
Apparently, he had again
escaped the group home.
The judge issued a warrant
for his arrest and once
more adjourned the court.
A few months later, the
hearing couldn't continue
yet again. The RCMP had
been unable to locate the
youth to bring him to court.
It looked to me as if they
hadn't even tried to find
him. The charges were stayed
and the case was closed.

I
was pleased and angry at
the same time. How could
they arrange this whole
scheme, find a person to
accuse me, lay false charges,
create suspicion and blacken
my character, only to let
the matter drop so I couldn't
prove in court it was a
set up!

This
was in fact the second trial
that did not finish. The
first was when they charged
me with illegally entering
Canada. I was prepared to
tell everything during the
hearings, so it would be
clear under what circumstances
I had entered the country.
However, in September of
1990, the Department of
Justice stayed its charge
of using fraudulent means
to enter Canada. My opportunity
to reveal publicly in a
Canadian court the dirty
tricks CSIS used and to
defend my name was thus
gone.

The
government's third case
did go to court. The death
threat charges against our
building superintendent
proceeded. It was easy for
my lawyer, Brian Beresh,
to prove that the woman
was lying and could not
even remember all her accusations.
She contradicted her own
testimony in court and even
said different things from
what she said during the
preliminary hearing. During
the trial, the young prosecutor
tried to offer a deal that
I wouldn't contact her and
would stop threatening her
in exchange for dropping
the charges. That would
mean that I would admit
to threatening her. I refused
and the court found me not
guilty of the charge.

It
was now 3 - 0 for me. All
attempts to have me criminally
convicted and found `a threat
to Canadian society' had
failed. A friend warned
me to watch every step as
my adversaries in high places
might trump up another charge
against me in the hope that
I would just quit trying
to stay in Canada. I refused
to give up. They underestimated
me if they thought they
could simply discard me
after having used me in
their amateur spy games.
They couldn't kick me out
of the country with the
blessing of a compliant
Immigration service. I was
a tough opponent and if
attacked I would reciprocate
in kind.

*
* * * *

In
an effort to seek answers
to many questions posed
by Paszkowski's saga, I
decided to pursue the matter
through the channels available
to Members of Parliament.
In the spring of 1991, I
tabled two questions on
the Order Paper. "With respect
to Canadian Security Intelligence
employee Ryszard Paszkowski,
(a) did CSIS inform him
of the nature of his mission
in Rome in 1986, and if
not, for what reason (b)
did CSIS attempt to persuade
him to tell Roman police
authorities that he was
on a private visit, and
if so, for what reason?"

The
second: "Have officials
of the Department of External
Affairs attempted to have
the government of the Federal
Republic of Germany reinstate
Ryszard Paszkowski's lapsed
status as a refugee, and
if so, for what reason?
Have measures been taken
to remove Ryszard Paszkowski
from Canada, and, if so,
(a) when (b) for what reason?"
An answer never arrived.

Cadieux's
answer to my first question
as printed in Hansard: "Mr.
Ryszard Paszkowski was never
an employee of the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service
(CSIS). After his first
arrival in Canada in December
1984, and before his departure
for Rome in 1986, he did
provide information to the
Service about the alleged
activities in Canada of
a foreign intelligence service.
This information could not
be verified and as stated
in the House by the Honourable
James Kelleher, when Solicitor
General, on January 22,
1988, CSIS ended its relationship
with Mr. Paszkowski before
he left Canada voluntarily
for Italy in August 1986.
The relationship between
the Service and Mr. Paszkowski
has been thoroughly examined
by the Security Intelligence
Review Committee (SIRC)
and no wrong doing of any
kind by the Service in relation
to Mr. Paszkowski was found."

At
about the same time, I put
a question in the House
to Pierre Cadieux as the
minister then responsible
for CSIS. I asked why CSIS
had sent Paszkowski to Rome.
Cadieux provided no answer,
saying only that as I had
tabled a similar question
on the Order Paper the response
would come at an "appropriate
time".

My
supplementary question:
"Madam Speaker, the Solicitor
General should be aware
that a government travel
document was provided by
CSIS to Paszkowski that
summer. This has been documented
by Richard Cleroux in his
book Official Secrets.
My supplementary question
is for the Acting Minister
of Employment and Immigration....
Mr. Paszkowski's wife, Elzbieta,
has recently been found,
as the minister knows, to
be a refugee in Canada.
The minister's own department
is seeking to expel him.
Will the minister not intervene
in this case to allow her
husband who has rendered
significant services, I
believe, to CSIS, to remain
in this country with his
wife and son?"

"Hon.
Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor
General of Canada):
Madam Speaker, I would
just like to tell my
hon. friend that if
he knows the answer
to the question I do
not see why he is asking
it, assuming that the
information as to that
travel document which
he alleges is true.
I will neither deny
or confirm that. With
respect to the book
to which he refers,
I do not think it is
my responsibility to
become a literary critic.
With respect to Mr.
Paszkowski, as my hon.
friend knows, SIRC has
looked into the case
of Mr. Paszkowski. In
its report of 1987-88,
SIRC said: `We satisfied
ourselves that CSIS
dealt properly with
Mr. Paszkowski.'"

In
early June, I attended a
meeting of the Commons Standing
Committee on Justice and
the Solicitor General. Doug
Lewis, then Solicitor General
and CSIS Director Reid Morden
were present. Though not
then a member of the committee
I was allowed to ask a question
of Morden; Lewis answered
for him and the exchange
was recorded as follows:

"Mr.
Kilgour: Finally to
Mr. Morden, a question
about Ryszard Paszkowski.
You may not want to
do it now, you may have
to look it up, but I
would like to know when
he stopped drawing a
regular income from
CSIS. Secondly, did
your representatives
in Edmonton not put,
to put it mildly, very
considerable pressure
on him to go on a mission
for CSIS in mid-1986
to Rome?"

"Mr.
Lewis: Mr. Chairman,
I think those allegations
are completely out of
character for a Member
of Parliament and should
be completely ignored
and expunged from the
record. Knowing the
individual who made
them, I am not surprised."

"Mr.
Kilgour: But the answer
to the question, Mr.
Chairman?"

"The
Chairman (Robert Horner):
There really was not
much of a question there."

*
* * * *

Since
1990, I wrote often to ministers
in the Mulroney cabinet
on behalf of Paszkowski
and his wife, attempting
to create enough pressure
to ensure that the case
would finally get a fair
hearing. My letters to ministers
Barbara McDougall, Bernard
Valcourt, Kim Campbell,
Doug Lewis and Pierre Cadieux
perhaps caused Immigration
headquarters and CSIS to
update continually the briefing
notes and media lines for
their ministers even though
no question was raised in
the House of Commons about
Paszkowski after 1991. In
terms of changes in bureaucratic
attitudes toward the case,
the letters produced nothing.

The
replies I received from
CSIS Director Ray Protti
and Solicitor General Doug
Lewis in 1992 repeated the
same lines: "I'm satisfied
that the Service acted professionally
and appropriately in its
dealings with Mr. Paszkowski."
A quote from the 1987-88
Annual Report of the SIRC
sometimes appeared as back-up
for the latest decision
not to intervene. Citing
a list of review bodies
and former Solicitor Generals
who were involved with Paszkowski's
case, Doug Lewis ended his
June 1992 letter: "I have
nothing further to add in
this regard and consider
the matter closed."

The
Chrétien government, brought
to office in the October
1993 election, offered Ryszard
and Ela real hope that with
new people new attitudes
would follow. In the fall
of 1993, as his case continued,
I both wrote to and spoke
with the new Immigration
Minister, Sergio Marchi.
In fairness, the minister,
barely two months into his
job, had little time to
review the highly complex
Paszkowski case; moreover,
most of the same mandarins
who had been feeding briefing
notes to the previous ministers
were now advising him.

In
a December 1993 letter to
Marchi outlining the reasons
Paszkowski's case deserved
a review, I wrote:

"While
true that he was convicted
of air piracy in West
Germany, he was never
charged with terrorism....
Paszkowski clearly believed
his life depended on
escaping from the Soviet
sphere because he had
defected from the Polish
Security Service. Surely,
our own courts would
deal differently with
someone hijacking a
plane from Cuba as opposed
to the USA.

"The
document prepared by
Case Management of Immigration
NHQ in Ottawa while
summing up Mr. Paszkowski's
case concluded: `He
will remain criminally
inadmissible unless
Governor in Council
approval is obtained
on the grounds that
he has rehabilitated
himself. He will not
be eligible to be considered
for this process until
the spring of 1994.'

"According
to various news sources,
former East German secret
police agents and communist
officials have teamed
up with organized crime,
posing a threat to the
united country. A similar
situation exists in
Poland where former
SB agents are employed
in the police force
after the events
of 1989. A former Polish
government official
told me some months
ago, following a trip
to Warsaw, that Paszkowski's
life would definitely
be in real danger from
rogue members of the
SB if he were forced
to return to Poland....
At the very least, has
he not rehabilitated
himself after risking
his life for CSIS on
at least two occasions?"

The
response was a severe disappointment
to the Paszkowskis. In a
style highly reminiscent
of the briefing notes and
media lines provided to
previous ministers, Mr.
Marchi's letter declared:
"This letter has been given
a careful review and it
has been determined that
Mr. Paszkowski has been
dealt with fairly. He has
had the full benefit of
Canada's very generous refugee
determination system, and
is unlikely to face unduly
harsh or inhumane treatment
should he be returned to
his native Poland. It should
also be pointed out that
Mr. Paszkowski originally
secured admission to Canada
as a fugitive from justice,
under a false name. Accordingly,
I have determined that my
intervention in this case
is not warranted."

In
May 1994, some truly astonishing
documents obtained from
the Immigration and Refugee
Board by the media revealed
that rapists, drug dealers,
addicts, and armed robbers
were among 197 newcomers
- all convicted of crimes
in Canada - who had persuaded
the Appeal Division of the
Board to stay their deportation
orders during 1993 alone.
What offense had Ryszard
committed? All three charges
brought against him in Canada
were either dropped by prosecutors
or thrown out by our courts.